Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic overview of systematic reviews

Nurmatov, Ulugbek ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9557-8635, Dhami, Sangeeta, Arasi, Stefania, Roberts, Graham, Pfaar, Oliver, Muraro, Antonella, Ansotegui, Ignacio J., Calderon, Moises, Cingi, Cemal, Durham, Stephen, Gerth van Wijk, Roy, Halken, Susanne, Hamelmann, Eckard, Hellings, Peter, Jacobsen, Lars, Knol, Edward, Larenas‑Linnemann, Desiree, Lin, Sandra Y., Maggina, Vivian, Oude‑Elberink, Hanneke, Pajno, Giovanni, Panwankar, Ruby, Pastorello, Elideanna, Pitsios, Constantinos, Rotiroti, Giuseppina, Timmermans, Frans, Tsilochristou, Olympia, Varga, Eva‑Maria, Wilkinson, Jamie, Williams, Andrew, Worm, Margitta, Zhang, Luo and Sheikh, Aziz 2017. Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic overview of systematic reviews. Clinical and Translational Allergy 7 , 24. 10.1186/s13601-017-0159-6

Preview

PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). To inform the development of recommendations, we sought to critically assess the systematic review evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for ARC. Methods: We undertook a systematic overview, which involved searching nine international biomedical databases from inception to October 31, 2015. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Systematic Review Checklist for systematic reviews. Data were descriptively synthesized. Results: Our searches yielded a total of 5932 potentially eligible studies, from which 17 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. Eight of these were judged to be of high, five moderate and three low quality. These reviews suggested that, in carefully selected patients, subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy resulted in significant reductions in symptom scores and medication requirements. Serious adverse outcomes were rare for both SCIT and SLIT. Two systematic reviews reported some evidence of potential cost savings associated with use of SCIT and SLIT. Conclusions: We found moderate-to-strong evidence that SCIT and SLIT can, in appropriately selected patients, reduce symptoms and medication requirements in patients with ARC with reassuring safety data. This evidence does however need to be interpreted with caution, particularly given the heterogeneity in the populations, allergens and protocols studied . There is a lack of data on the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of SCIT and SLIT. We are now systematically reviewing all the primary studies, including recent evidence that has not been incorporated into the published systematic reviews.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Medicine
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Publisher:	BioMed Central
ISSN:	2045-7022
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	23 August 2017
Date of Acceptance:	17 June 2017
Last Modified:	04 May 2023 22:09
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/103898

Citation Data

Cited 54 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item